Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  February 27, 2013 12:00pm-1:00pm PST

12:00 pm
signalling gap. >> rose: larry summers and sal khan when we continue, funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications
12:01 pm
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: lawrence summers is here, he is a professor at harvard, where he was president from 2001 to 2006. he was treasury secretary under esideninton and returned to the white house in 2009 as advisor of the national economic council, in that role he was central to president obama's the response to the financial crisis, he is here to talk about the scwes officer imposed in summer of 2011 and intended as a consequence so unacceptable congress and the president would have to agree on revenue increases and spending cuts in order to avoid it. with three days to go they have not been able to do that, the first $85 billion about spending cuts will take effect on march 1st, ben bernanke testified to cock earlier today he promised to extend the federal reserve stimulus measures and make made a direct appeal to avoid the sequester. >> the congress and the administration should consider
12:02 pm
replacing the sharp front loaded spending cuts required by the sequestration with policies that reduce the federal deficit more gradually in the near term but more substantially in the longer run. >> rose: i am pleased to have larry summers back at this table. >> good to be with you, charlie. >> rose: so first off, was -- what do you believe will be the impact if as most people now believe the sequester takes effect? >> nothing good, charlie. macro economically it will take too much demand out of the economy, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. it will disrupt everything from aids clinics to preschool programs, from our ability to deploy our fleet in the mediterranean and pacific to our ability to efficiently enforce taxes. >> rose: all because of -- >> it is a mistake. >> rose: we will get to that but all because of $85 billion,
12:03 pm
all those things will be affected? because this is a huge, huge economy. >> it is a big economy, but $85 billion is a lot of money. it is not $85 billion over a year, it is $85 billion over seven months, so it is like $170 billion over a year, and it is not out of a whole economy, it is out of a federal budget and it is not out of a whole federal budget, it is out of only pieces of the federal budget, so for that which is being cut, it is eight percent, ten percent in that range that is being taken out with no plan suddenly across-the-board. if we took ten percent of the budget out of this newsroom right here. >> rose: right. >> -- we would create substantial disruption if we did wit no plan. >> rose: yes. >> and that's what we are doing across the country in every sphere to every department, it
12:04 pm
is just not the right way to run the country. >> rose: so any businessman or anybody who says, well, we can live with this, they simply don't understand the severity of what it would mean? >> look, we are a strong country, we have lived through civil war, we have lived through all kinds of. >> rose: two world wars. >> all kind of trauma, but this will be a substantial blow to the way our country is seen to the world, the way our economy functions, to the government's ability to do the things that everybody agrees it has to do. >> rose: then why -- >> educating children. >> rose: then why didn't the president see this when they started the sequester, when they first, as bob woodward has said and documented, when they first came up with the idea of the sequester? was it because they misjudged both sides as to what they were willing to do to avoid the sequester? >> i think there was an assumption of good faith and a balanced approach, i think there
12:05 pm
has been an assumption that there is a recognition that you can't solve a problem like the budget deficit, you can't solve a problem like getting the economy growing with just one strategy or just one measure. and you need to do things to bear on revenues, and you need to do things that cut back expenditures, and that is what the president wants to see, that is what the president has been consistently wanting to see. >> rose: what the republicans say is, we gave him his tax increase the last time out when we were talking about, you know, the bush -- the ceiling and also the bush tax cuts, we gave on revenue, it is time for the president to give on spending. time for the president to lay his cards on the table and say what he is prepared to do in the biggest part of the budget which is i entitlements. >> look, charlie, i am not in washington doing day -- doing --
12:06 pm
doing day to day -- doing day to day, doing day to day politics. i think the place you have got to start is we began this attack on the budget august of 2011, when we took $1.2 trillion out of spending and did zero on revenues, then we did revenues much less, about half as much in january. >> 600 billion. >> 600 billion. >> so now we have done much more revenue cutting than revenue raising and all the president has said is that we need to do both. >> rose: should bit one to one? or three to one or ten to one? >> look, i think you can argue. i think that is a question, that is a question of priorities and it comes down to we have the revenue, it would come down to where the revenues are coming from and where to spend -- where the spending would be cut. is there room to reimburse healthcare more efficiently and
12:07 pm
save costs? absolutely. and that is an important thing that we should be doing. is there room to get rid of tax expenditures? you know, it is really an expenditure through the tax code, when we give a special tax break for a corporate jet or when we give a special treat, a special treatment for certain kinds of income, that is a form of spending money. we don't collect the regular tax and so money is proposing we raise tax rates. the question is -- >> rose: no one proposed we raise anymore after doing what you have said. >> nobody is proposing raising tax rates. the question now is whether as we look at expenditures we should look at both the expenditures that occur directly and the expenditures through the tax system, we should judge them in terms of the needle dins of the people getting the benefits and judge them in terms of the extent to which they serve our
12:08 pm
economic purposes and we should take a balanced approach. the president has made very clear he has made address, a to address disbieltments. >> rose: why doesn't he lay it out? >> the president has made clear the cuts he is prepared to make in medicare, the president has made clear his budget makes clear, substantial cuts in domestic spending. those are the trajectory that we are on. >> rose:. >> the question -- the question really is are we prepared -- is there a willingness to do some kind of approach that is -- that iis balanced, that seems to be the right issue, you can issue what my preferences and other people will have their preferences but i guess the issue that seems to me to be sort of an issue of principle is as we move forward, are we going
12:09 pm
to move forward with deficit reduction on a balanced basis? some revenues, some expenditures, some defense, some nondefense, some entitlements, some direct spending, or are we going to enter the discussion and the negotiation with preconditions that take some of the possibilities off the table. >> rose: but that is exactly -- >> that seems to be where this is coming down, and i guess it surprises me when people take the position that we need to have some kind of precondition, that we won't even look at the possibility that there is a wasteful tax expenditure, we won't consider the merits of particular tax expenditures, i think democrats who say that entitlements are something that should not be touched, i don't think that is a reasonable position, and i don't think it
12:10 pm
is a reasonable position when people say that revenues and tax expenditures are not something that can be looked at, that's why i think the degree of polarization that we are is something that is very unforth and frank, unfortunate and frankly i have seen period in the past when washington has been divided but this seems to me to be a particularly high degree of intransigence and unwillingness to deal on the part of those who are trying to take some things off the table before the conversation starts. >> rose: now we are talking about house republicans who are trying to take any increase in revenue off the table, any elimination of deductions off the table, that's the precondition -- >> that's the precondition that is of particular concern to me but there are certainly some democrats that say that no disbielt. can be look at, i think that position is an equally wrong position. i don't think that is a position that is holding back the debate
12:11 pm
at this point, but i think that is an equally wrong position. i think people that say it all has to come from defense or we can't look at defense are people who are making a mistake. i think we need to be prepared to look at everything as we address these things. >> rose: do you believe that the election in 2012 had consequences? and are those consequences evident now? >> elections have consequences, if the election turned out differently we would have a different president and that different president would no doubt be proposing a different agenda. the president has made clear that he is prepared [shouting down mr. rose] >> he is prepared to go with the position he took in december, in conversations with speaker boehner, but he and speaker boehner had serious discussions about substantial broadening of the tax base. >> rose: in is the grand bargain. >> the grand bargain, would address entitlements and the broadening of the tax base, the president is still there and
12:12 pm
willing to discuss all of that. the president, yes, the president made promises, the president focused on certain issues and in the course of his campaign, and the president is trying to carry through on those commitments. >> rose: what -- >> it seems to be irresponsible, charlie, for an official, for an official in a democracy who is elected, stressing certain issues and stressing certain commitments to not try to carry through on those condominiums, i think would be irresponsible. so, yes, elections do have consequences, but elections certainly don't mean that winners of elections don't get to -- don't have to compromise, of course winners of elections have to compromise and the president has made it very clear he is prepared to compromise. he is prepared to compromise in the discussion of what tax expenditures are cut back, he is
12:13 pm
prepared to compromise on an issue that is critical to people in his party by opening up different ways of containing healthcare costs through medicare. the president is very much prepared to compromise, but the president is not prepared to exceed to others preconditions that take certain issues off the table before the conversation starts when the subjects that they are trying to take off the table were issues that he stressed throughout his presidential campaign. i don't think it would be faithful to the campaign that he ran if he were to do that. >> rose: of course the republicans are saying it is not that we ask to take it off the table, revenues, we gave you revenues and want more revenues and that is what happened to the grand bargain as well, you came back an wanted more revenues, we learned our lesson and not going there again. >> the president was prepared to do a grand bargain and to do revenues and to do entitlements together if you look at the
12:14 pm
aggregate of all of this the expenditure cuts are running away ahead, the republican's prior the at this, expense picture cuts are running away ahead of the revenue increases which are the president's priority, so it seems to me what is striking in a way is how far the president has been prepared to move to try to reach an agreement, because he understands that it is important for the future of the country. it is important for confidence, to be prepared to reach an agreement. >> rose: so what is the problem? the problem is republicans? they are the villains because they are preventing negotiations from taking place? and because they say, i am asking you, this is a question, because they are saying that without -- we are not going to focus on anymore revenues, we can only talk about spending, and by doing that, they are setting it up as a condition and by doing that they are tossing up headlong into the scwes ster? is that your position.
12:15 pm
>> there is no conversation without -- her not willing to have a balanced conversation that considers everything with the precondition there is really not much conversation to open up. it seems to me that it would be exceeding to -- exceeding to intransigence if the president were to simply let the republicans say, well, when we talking about using the deficit in these ways but not these ways before the conversation -- before the conversation. >> rose: but -- >> before the conversation started. i have tried to leave it to others to make judgments about what the best negotiating strategy is, my judgment is that the sequester is very much not in our interests. my judgment also is that reasonable paths towards deficit reduction have to be balanced. >> rose: right. >> and that accepting the
12:16 pm
principle that they can be unbalanced and entirely on the spending side would be to accept the evisceration of crucial functions the government has to perform in our society. and so my advice and my judgment would be that the administration, any responsible administration has to insist on negotiating it away that leaves the prospect of government performing its basic functions, defending the country, supporting education, open, so i would say that you have to insist that the conversation be within the frame of a balanced knife with some numerical formula, one to one, one to two, but just that there be openness
12:17 pm
to both tax expenditures and regular expenditures, because i think to take out the possibility of discussing tax expenditures would seem like bad economics, in terms of the best way to address this, would seem setting a terrible precedent in terms of rewarding intransigence, and would involve a central judgment about who is going to be helped and who is going to be hurt in this society that i think was rejected in the last election, at least by my values would be very misguided. >> okay two, things on that, number one i think it is probably the point which to reward intransigence is probably a bad negotiating strategy so i will give you on that, on the other hand, you know, you could raise the question that there is only one president and the president has a bully pulpit and perhaps if the president was willing to say, not be hung up on the intransigence of the
12:18 pm
other side and say, okay i am going to come forward here and i will tell you what i want to do, with the expectation that if he laid that out and said this is where i see the cuts and be and entitlements and see the reform all which you said needs to be done and i have taken two steps forward, now what are you going to do? then let them say, oh, we don't want it, that is not good enough, you need revenue as well as that then we are not going to play, but lay it out and then let them say no. >> the president made a clear set of offers in august of 2011 and. >> rose: talking about the grand bargain. >> and the grand bargain was rejected and we have done this. the problem is, we have done this. we have had the grand bargain proposals, the president has made grand bargain proposals, they were balanced and then they were rejected. and so at a certain point, you can't ask, it seems to me and i would feel the same way if we
12:19 pm
had a republican president and a democratic majority in the house, it seems to me you can't expect the president to simply keep making offers until one of them is acceptable to the majority in the house, because if you do that, you change our whole system around in terms of who is in charge. and i think one of the problems. >> rose: who is in charge. >> and who is in a leadership position and you understood cut the whole idea of negotiation. you know, that is one of the things i think is very difficult in the way the media covers, covers these things and i understand why the media covers it in the way that it does. >> rose: how does the media cover it. >> whenever there is a disagreement, there is always an instinct there is now a disagreement, therefore, both parties need to move, and the problem is that if one -- if the history of the disagreement is
12:20 pm
that one party was absolutely intransigent and the other party kept moving and moving and moving and moving, then saying each time you need to split the difference, just rewards the party that has been intransigent. it is quite revealing in a way in terms of understanding who has had flexibility and who has not that to look at what yo erse bottoms and simpson came forward with. >> rose: the original simpson-bowles. >> the original simple zone bowls commission. >> they tried to be the center and have a centrist position. and so you might ask the question, as they have tried to find a centrist position, has their position moved more towards revenues of the kind that democrats favor or has it moved towards expenditure cuts that republicans favor. >> rose: anded what would be the answer. >> the answer would be very clear it moved very much towards expenditure cuts. they have moved in their concept
12:21 pm
of what the center is very much in the republican direction. that's why i actually think the moral legitimate, more legitimate concern is that somehow this debate is moving towards the people who lost the election rather than towards the people who won the election. i don't put overwhelming emphasis on that point because i agree with what you are saying, charlie that we need to try to find a compromise, here and it is important to move forward. >> rose: yes but -- >> let's be very clear about where the intransigence is and where the flexibility is. >> okay and -- >> and i think that is an important point in understanding the nature of this and it is just too easy and too tempting to always say there is a disagreement, the other people won't accept it, therefore the president should move. but if you think about putting a system like that in place and making that be the rules of the
12:22 pm
road, that is a system that is going to be rewarding blackmail every time. >> rose: fair enough and i hear you saying that and that's an interesting observation about simpson-bowles and they seem to be more responding to intransigence on the part of the republicans than they are to whatever the president -- >> i am not faulting simpson-bowles. >> rose: no, no, i see what you are doing -- >> where this negotiation has moved and to help us both see where there has been intransigence and where there has been flexibility. >> rose: but erskine bowls or simpsons look you regarded the republicans being intransigent they would agree with you. >> i would say they have been looking to find where the center is, and they would recognize that the center has moved, if you like, to the right in the last month and, you know, i suspect they would avoid and try to avoid getting involved in any partisan discussion, but if it is true and i am sure they would agree with this, that their current position is more expenditure centered and less revenue centered than their past
12:23 pm
position, that is sort of telling you how this debate has moved, which is giving you some insight into where there has been a willingness to compromise and where there has been intransigence and as i say that, some people think that there has been an excessive willingness to compromise. >> rose: do you believe that what you think is necessary to reform the budget process and the economy and the debt issue for america needs significant reform of entitlements and especially healthcare? do you believe that and do you believe that you think it is more deeper and more severe than the president believes? >> i don't think that i -- >> rose: or do you think -- >> the president believes that as well, charlie. >> rose: well you know at a thousand conversations about -- >> i talked a lot with the president, i think what the president believes is exactly
12:24 pm
right, which is somehow the way we have got organized, the paying for healthcare. >> rose: right. >> in this country causes us to pay half again or under than any other country and we get essentially no greater benefits from it, and that we need to be reforming the way we pay for and reimburse healthcare. >> rose: which we did not do -- >> and more incentives and that problems lies before us and it is a crucial thing to do with respect to the government programs and it is a crucial thing to do with respect to private sector insurance as well. and that we may be making some real progress, healthcare costs have grown much less rapidly in the last two or three, last two or three years, whether that -- >> rose: in the last quarter -- >> no, last two or three-year, since 2010, they have been much lower than has been expected, it has been revised down with regard the estimate by nearly a trillion-dollar. so a hugely important thing that happened. whether it will continue or not, wrong it is entirely clear,
12:25 pm
should we do more to lock it in as a country? yes. i think we should do more to lock it in as a country and the president very much supports looking for and supporting ways to improve the incentives that are in you are, in our healthcare system. what the president does not favor and what i do not favor and what i think is badly misguided is ideas that are quite fashionable like. >> rose: like what? >> the idea, for example we should raise the retirement age for medicare. >> rose: that is bad? >> most people who are 66 in the united states are not working. where are they going to get their health insurance if we take it away from medicare? yes, we might be able to send them to the private sector and send them to the private sector in some way but, you know,. >> rose: what we are -- >> what is important about medicare, in medicare, 97 cents out of every dollar that gets paid in goes to a healthcare provider in private health insurance, that number is more like 85 cents and so would it
12:26 pm
serve some objective to move people out of medicare and into some kind of private health insurance? some kind of -- certainly the people who are most enthusiastic about raising the retirement age are the least enthusiastic about obama care, i honestly don't know what they want to do with 65 and 66 years olds who most of them are not working. >> rose: have you ever been sort of slightly attracted to a single payer system? >> have i ever thought about it? yes. do i. >> rose: do you consider it [. >> do i see attraction to it? yes. do i think if we moved to it -- i think there are two problems: the short run and there is the
12:27 pm
long run. the short run transition is going to be complete chaos, out of a set of healthcare arrangements that for most people work reasonably well, and the long run, when manager is totally government run, it doesn't tend to be very innovative, doesn't tend to promote competition, so, no, i would not want to see us move in the united states to single payer. >> rose: let me go to this final question about sequester. some people believe that the president thinks that if sequester happens, not with all of these terrible things that would... consequences of it, that the republicans will be blamed for it and that, therefore, he is unwilling to negotiate because if it does take place, the political damage will be for the republicans and not the democrats. >> charlie, i have been in washington long enough to know that all sentences that begin "some people think" are true, since all -- since all opinions are held -- are held by -- are held by someone. you know, i have watched the
12:28 pm
president, i have watched the president very closely for the two years that i was there, as i watched his from predecessor, president clinton for eight years during his administration, and both of them made judgments that reflected the political reality of a particular moment. if you don't believe in politics, you really shouldn't be president. but my observation of president obama, like my observation of president clinton, was that they understood that in the long run history was going to be the judge and that was all that really mattered. and if the issue was really important, they were going to do what they thought was best for the country. and president obama believes there are some very important principles here about what kind of process there should be, as the president negotiates with congress, about the need for
12:29 pm
balance between spending and revenues as we address national problems. about looking at all different areas, as we address these things. >> rose: and do you believe -- >> while protecting the middle class at a time when inequality in our country really has taken off in a very, very dramatic way and so -- >> rose: a gap... >> the gaps. >> rose: and income and -- >> and not just income, if you look at the -- if you look at what has happened the life expectancy of the richest half of the population, it has gone up hugely over the last generation. if you look at what happened to life expectancy of the average part of the population, it hasn't moved, it hasn't moved at all. that's another reason why these ideas of raising the retirement age are so cruel. because they take away a much
12:30 pm
larger fraction of the remaining years for the average part of the population than they do for the most fortunate part of the population. so the president really sees important issues of principle here. he thinks -- and i believe he is right-- that he talked about those issues during the campaign and talked about them in powerful ways, and that the people came to his side and he thinks it is an important part of responsible governing to govern consistent with the vision he laid out. >> rose: okay. but then that question that comes out of that, and i tend to look at this and believe it and hope that all of that is true, not just for this president but previous presidents that in the end there is something about the office and responsibility that is sobering, and you think about what is in the best interests of the country you may have a different judgment based on experience but i believe that. do you believe the republicans
12:31 pm
don't march to the same drummer, that they have less of a sense of what is in the well-being for the country? >> no. i believe that they too are sincere in believing that their ends are best. i am not sure that they -- because no one of them has ultimate responsibility for the outcome, are as careful in thinking about the means they use to try to advance their objective. look, the clearest example of that was there were many who were prepared and -- to threaten to not pay the national debt in order to gain leverage. that was an act that exposed the united states to ridicule. now, i don't think any one of them, if it was their ultimate
12:32 pm
decision would be done that to the united states and, you know, it is not that democrats in a group where no one has individual responsibility have ever taken irresponsible positions during republican administrations. i would be the last to say that. but i think there is a difference between the role of president and the fact that we have one president and we have many members of congress, we have many members of the senate that does make it easier for republicans and democrats alike to take positions that are ultimately less responsible. >> rose: thank you, professor summers. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: great to have you here. back in a moment-- sal khan will talk about education, another national issue for the country.
12:33 pm
>> rose: salman khan is here, he is founder of khan academy, the online learning tool that taught millions. forbes magazine calls it the largest school in the world, bill gates calls him a true pioneer. it is to free world class education for anyone, anywhere. salman khan has written a book describing how such a vision might be achieved, it is called the "one world schoolhouse: education reimagined." i am pleased to have him back on this program, welcome. >> good to be here. >> rose: with you here we talked about how this whole thing started for you and the development with your niece i think who was down in louisiana and you were teaching her and used youtube and all of that. where is it now? >> yeah. you know, since i think when we last spoken about 18 months ago i think we were reaching about a million students every month and now at 6 million students every month. the team is growing, i think
12:34 pm
when we last talked it was a five person team and now we are approaching 40 people. and it's really about, not just the videos, although the videos are a still a big part of what we do-- i'm not the only person making videos anymore. we are now translating the videos into every major language in the world. our software platform is used inside of classrooms and outside of classrooms around the world. yes, so it is kind of -- it is just where it was before but maybe ten times bigger. >> do you think you were born to teach? >> i enjoy it.k i wasn't born to play basketball. >> rose: me neither. >> me neither. have a passion for it, you had a technique for it, i mean, and you found more love for it than you did being, obviously, because you love being, you know, in the hedge fund world. >> yeah, i mean, although, you know, most people realize the commonality between what i was doing before and what i hope i am doing now, even in the hedge fund world it was actually an
12:35 pm
intriguing job, in some way it is not that different from what we are doing now, you have the context from one space to another am constantly learning and talking to a lot of people to learn there them for me a big part of that i don't know is to learn stuff i couldn't communicate as much as i might have wanted to and now i get a chance to do both. >> rose: and where can you take this? >> you know,, a couple of things that we are working on i mentioned we are translating the video but also internationalizing the bear site and already have partners, the karl simms foundation, lemon foundation in brazil and took a trip down to brazil and national interest, the president has asked what we will be able to do today. >> rose: in brazil? >> in brazil, so i think in the next year, this will be kind of going global in a much more significant way, i think you will see, you know, it started with videos and had online component, exercises to give people feedback on where we are and make that much more serious, you had 48 states have adopted the common core standard, there aren't any assessments out
12:36 pm
there, there are some groups out there that will be developing assessments, and through this whole transition you will have teachers and parents and wongd derg how they navigate the switch and what we hope to do is take our exercises and turn them into rigorous assessments so you can go to the site, get a really strong diagnostics of what you know and what you don't know so we can narrow you in on here is what you need to work on and kind of coach you through that process, the tools 4 the teachers will get better and we also want to figure out a way for you to get credit for what wow know. >> rose: how far away are you from that? >> woe have had a lot of interesting conversations, you know. >> rose: what is the resistance? >> there is surprisely, surprisingly, maybe we are not seeing the resistance because we are in the that far along yet, but, you know, especially if you talk about some of the core college courses or the late high school courses, this things right now you have 75, 70 percent of students who go to community college have to take remedial math and usually don't find that out until they show up and start paying tuition and this is no one wants to happen
12:37 pm
and a biggest predictor of whether they will be able to finish or not, so if we can do that ahead of time look i know my along gras and prealgebra and trigonometry and ready to engage, if someone can prove that at the professional level, hey i can program a computer, i might i might not have the four-year degree but employable, we think that could have huge implications for, one, someone who doesn't have a chance to go to traditional university or even kind of some of the structural unemployment issues, we think it starts on employment there is a skill gap and more a signalling gap. >> rose: signalling? >> signalling gap we have people who do have skills and no way for them to prove it, right now we have that problem where people are learning stuff on khan academy and they want to prove it to the world but there is no way to prove it. >> that they know manager. >> that they know something, we have accounting videos, kids learn accounting at a decent level and a lot more to do, but there is no way for them to validate that, and so we imagine a world where, you know, a few year out someone will be able to. >> rose: who will set the standard? >> you know,, i think for any type of credential, the key is
12:38 pm
who is going to be the consumer of the credential, who does it matter to? so someone who wants to prove they know algebra, i see we have to go to universities and make sure that you feel this is a credible standard that someone has attain, but if you are talking about if you are talking about does someone know how to program or does someone have good critical thinking skills or write well you go to the employer and say would you respect this type of a credential and the thing we point out is even today, very pensive credentials have limited information in them, and yo youn go to a fancy university and when a company like google or microsoft interviews you, they still assume very little, they make you go through a very, you know, the first interviews, go write bubbles on the chalkboard which is what you learn in the computer class and this is someone gone four years and if you can take that process and turn it into a yes ken chul, credential, you don't have to go to to a fancy university, with this you go to the third round
12:39 pm
of the interview process at fortune 500 company y or software company, this is great it is not a silver bullet but there some magic here, what is it you have understood about learning when you taught your niece way back when? >> yeah, and i will emphasize it is not a silver bullet, the biggest criticism we say this is not a silver bullet and i agree, and, well,. >> rose: in other words, what i mean by that, there is no easy way here. >> right. >> rose: you are just helping people learn better. >> right, we are helping. >> rose: or helping them learn themselves, teach themselves to learn. >> and that's the key and what we want to point out is for us and for me, to really educate someone doesn't mean to try to pour information into their brain and hope they can regurgitate it out but allow them, by them the tools to take agencies and that's the real skill, yeah if you can factor a polynomial that is nice but go out of the work force and new tech following emerges and take
12:40 pm
ownership of it and learn it that is what you want people to be at and so i think that we tapped into, and it was initially me making stuff for my cousins is put stuff that is out there that respect it is learner that is approachable, that is conversational, that really gives people the thinking behind something, not just the formula, and you let them access it on their own terms, and there is huge immediate for that. >> rose: can you monetize this? >> it is an interesting question. you know, we are not for profit, so that means no one owns khan bad but still we have to sustain ourselves in some way, and not for profit doesn't mean you can't generate revenue, i mean, universities do that quite well. i think -- but on top of not for profit we have in our mission state a free world class education anywhere so we are not going to charge or committed not charging for the learning part. so-so far we are
12:41 pm
philanthropically supported and hope i can make that case it is hard to have a more social return on investment, but we are discovering we inadvertently built a brand and with that brand we are starting to license the content, we are starting to do some brand partnerships, people start hearing about that more in the next couple of months that are actually help pay for a significant amount of our operating budget. >> rose: what about corporate america or the corporate world? >> yes. and i think there are a few. >> rose: say the work force is a crucial ingredient of what they do. >> two elements of that, one is a lot of corporations feel they are not able to fine the talent that they need to feel certain slots, and so we can either help the world ramp up with those skills and help prove they know those skills and i think what you are looking to this is this idea of this idea of corporate training itself this model makes more sense you are sitting at your desk and you want to improve your skill in one vertical another you do it at your own pace. a lot of corporate training and a lot of corporations are
12:42 pm
realizing the best thing to do for the customer is educate their customers about the domain they are in so starting to do stuff there as well. >> rose: why did you call this the one world schoolhouse. >> it is funny, because this was the working title at first, and the -- and it was a working title because i would say, well, the irony is a lot of what we are talking about is going to the one room schoolhouse, multiage schoolhouse, a lot more enter acting and people taking responsibility for each other but there are neat things here, like any kid in the world can access this and connect any student in the world, there is another element to it which i talk about,, you know, i want to take the elector off the table in the classroom so the classroom can engage in the world in a more relevant way. so, yeah, it sounded like kind of a fun, one room schoolhouse, one world. >> rose: so that go to the core here and i am really interested in the experience from the learner's standpoint, i mean obviously you, the part of your notion is that what we understood, you know, as a classroom method of teaching is
12:43 pm
not preoordained as the best way to teach. >> absolutely. i mean if you go back 400 years ago and you saw the few people who are getting an education 400 years ago, it was pretty much private tutor and it was self paced you master a concept and -- >> rose: and master is crucial. >> mastery is crucial, if you don't master prealgebra, it is kind of nuts to expect you to understand algebra or trig. right now you can barely pass algebra and get into algebra 2, and what happened is about 200 -- i go into the history a bit in the book a little over 200 years ago the prussians, you know, now a part or some what a part of germany were with the first to say, well, we want a large labor force and the beginning of the industrial revolution, let's have universal public education, it is actually a pretty profound thing they did, but how do we do it? an economical way? and they said, well, maybe we batch students together, i mean we see how some of these factories beginning to
12:44 pm
do built and in scale, we batch student together, moving them in a line in a set pace, we try to pour knowledge into their heads, some kids it will stick and some it won't, at some point we start, you know, we start sorting the oranges, these kids are going to be juiced and these kids are going to whole foods. but -- you know, so -- and there is an element of even the old prussian model of some degree of indoctrination, and then in the mid 1,800s the u.s., you know, famously said well we want to have universal public education, it is no coincidence. >> rose: we based it on the prussian model. >> yes, these are the industrial superpowers, they had a middle class that was educated and fundamentally didn't rethink the model i talk about in the book it was discovered to me when i did some of the research, why do you always teach physics in the 12th grade and chemistry in the 11th frayed where did this come from? and it came literally from a group of ten men 120 years ago, before the internet
12:45 pm
or dna or anything that says people should learn gentleman only i are in the tenth grade and people should learn, three years of english and have, an it hasn't change, it has been frozen there so what we are saying is, a lot of the ideas aren't new, let's personalize the instruction to the student this is what would have been the gold standard 300 years ago and even 50 years ago if you said what is the best? well personalized instruction, now could you do that for every student? no. that is very expensive. it would cost you, you would have to hire a teacher for every student and what is interesting about ten technology, technology is we can two flu the same thought experiment and well maybe we can do personalized instruction for every student if we rethink the role of the teacher, if we move them up the value chain instead of them being a lecturer we let them see zero data on where every student is, going at their own pace, we leverage the packet the student can teach each other this is the one room schoolhouse comes in and amid level skill that is lost today, yes, it is nice to factor a polynomial but to take leadership and manage your peers
12:46 pm
piers if you are a 16-year-old and now leading 1 12-year-old ad teaching them hinge, can we leverage in that way? so everything we are writing here is, yes, i think we can, but not only can but we are doing it and seeing it and khan academy is a part of it but able to work with schools today that are experimenting with it. >> rose: you say pace time should be separate, it is a separate thing from mastery of concepts. >> yeah, i mean, right now face time and feet time, whatever you want to call it, it is there, people, i mean, at the university level to the point that your units are called, they are literally three credit hours, six credit hours, it is how many hours you sat in a chain chair. and what we are saying is one you should go to a competency model, it is not how long you sat in the chair but did you learn the material at a level of mastery and whether it took you five days to do it or five years to do it? that is irrelevant, you got to that level. the other is, when you get human beings together in a room, and a lot of people say, hey, you know, this lecture stuff, i
12:47 pm
enjoy it, but i loved my college lectures i could ask a question, yes that is exactly the point, instead of questions being five percent of the time it should be 100 percent of the type, there should be none of the students who are sitting passive and the point is, whether you have ten student in the room or 20 students in the room or 2000 if you have a having a pass stiff lecture it doesn't matter and we all statistic in a college lecturer or in high school and we are mall in the room together but not able to talk to each other, it is very does humanizing, no interactivity so what we are spaying is a lot of your exposure this to the concepts and once again, huh humanities have been doing this a long time, read this and we will discuss it in class. >> rose: so what is the difference of why student feel more passionate about their sports coaches than they do about their math teachers? >> yes, and in this is manager that i feel strongly -- because i saw it in high school, you are in tenth grade algebra class, the teacher asks the student to do like sticks problems, oh, my
12:48 pm
god and groaning and you are the meanest guy in the planet and three hours later, we are in wrestling practice and the teacher says, i want you to do 50 pushups, followed by running three miles, followed by another 50 pushups, and they are like yes, sir, yes, sir, push me harder, i want to collapse, literally times people would clams they are willing to work so hard. >> rose: what is the difference. they feel the coach is on their side and preparing them for battle. >> rose: in the, it is in their interest to do. >> they are training me, although the math teacher cares just as much or more about the student, the math teacher is viewed as an adversary, he will keep me from passing this is the person who is trying to flunk, although that is not what the motivations of the teacher are, so what we are advocating, what we are seeing is working well and the teachers we worked with love it, look become that coach and you don't have to become the, both the assessor and the lecturer and the coach, be that coach figure, be that meant mentor, and form a deeper connection with the students and
12:49 pm
you are preparing them for an outside world and it is just a very powerful mindset change. >> rose: a pathway to excellence. >> exactly, it is funny, i had a dinner i happened to be sitting next to wendy cop, teach for america and we rando randomly td about, what do you notice about the teach for america teachers that can really move the dial, she says said it is actually surprising, who can give the best lecture. >> rose: who is magic as a teacher. >> yes. and in the movies, they try to -- and they do have magic but it is a different type of magic, it is the teachers who can change the student's mindsets, who can be that older brother or that father or that mother figure and say, look, this a do or die situation, if you want to be able to survive in this world, i am here for you but it is your decision to make, it is the same type of psychology i think a good coach does and those are the one, once the student clicks in their brain i have to take ownership. >> rose: in football you have to find the place. >> and take ownership for yourself.
12:50 pm
look it is not me, it is you, you are going to make it or not and i am just here to help you. >> rose: i can't play the game for you, i don't have you to play it. >> exactly. >> rose: so when you look at the next five years, where might i see khan my in five years in is it simply a multiplier effect of how many kids you can reach? >> it is definitely that so in five years i hope we are reaching, you know, 50, who knows what might happen with internationalation, i hope that you see .. especially in places where they don't have access, i think the access issue is going to get solved to a large degree in the next five years with cheaper tablets and more internet, but -- >> rose: throughout education. >> throughout education, throughout education, but even outside of formal education systems. >> rose: right. >> ngos will give tablets to kids. >> rose: right, right. >> i think it will be -- some of the ideas in the book that right now, like, hey no more lectures in classrooms in i think they will start being mainstream and start seeing top institutions realize it is in their best interest to not define themselves but may i gave a good lecture that is pass stiff but what is the formal experience
12:51 pm
that i do on my campus and i think when we do that and people realize it is not either or, these are tools that will help the students take ownership it freeze up the physical environment to go deeper, i think that will be a mainstream think thing in five years. >> rose: where are we in terms of online education in evolution because it may not deliver what many people, many people thought it would when they understood it could be a tool. >> yes you had a first wave in the late hints, early 2 millions, it was kind of obvious it is about disseminating information and education. >> rose: the pc -- >> pc, steve jobs original i iginally thought the personal computer was going to be a treadmill for the brain, he thought that was a killer app for the computer, it ended up being for other things and obviously it helped people learn as well but it didn't really hit the nail on the head there, and then with the internet, even precomputer the radio thought was going to be the killer app for education, and thought tv, these are all, hey, tv on demand now, we can -- i think what happened in kind of maybe about
12:52 pm
five, six years ago, i mean, you can't underestimate youtube's power here where it really lowered the cost of streaming video, of producing a streaming video, close to zero close to a guy in closet could make it for its cousins. >> rose: that is you. >> that is me, and start getting traction. and i think that helped kind of show people that look there is a demand here and not just for the videos but for the whole interactive, immersive experience so this past year you had the mooks, massively online courses, mit, a group from stanford and other folks doing it, and what really seems different -- right now for the most part they are issuing certificates although they are partnering with a few institutions for credit as well so it is really different this time is it looks like all of the players, including us ar are looking how do we systemically become important to the system? with a blank slate what is the whole point of education and the whole point of a credential and how do we do that in the best
12:53 pm
possible way, either outside of the system or in partnership with it. >> rose: thank you. great to see you. >> it is great to be here. >> rose: the one world schoolhouse, education reimagined, salman khan, of khan academy, thank you for joining us, see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
12:54 pm
12:55 pm
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had but this is great! >> it almost felt like country club food to me. >> don't touch it. it's hot! >> i gotta tell you, you people
12:59 pm
hi, i'm leslie sbrocco. welcome to "check, please! bay area," the show where regular bay area residents review and talk about their favorite restaurants. now, we have three guests, each one recommends one of their favorite spots and the other two go to check 'em out to see what they think. this week -- lois lourie sells us

89 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on